West Coast Connection Forum
Lifestyle => Train of Thought => Topic started by: Ant on December 07, 2004, 10:37:54 PM
-
US rules out joining Kyoto treaty
By Elizabeth Blunt
BBC News, Buenos Aires
The US has told a UN conference on global warming that it has no intention of re-joining international efforts to cut greenhouse gas emissions.
The chief American negotiator at the conference in Argentina's capital Buenos Aires ruled out any move to sign up to the Kyoto Protocol for years.
He told reporters that efforts to cut emissions were based on bad science.
The US was focused instead, he said, on implementing President George W Bush's plans to promote energy efficiency.
At the beginning of this year's conference on global warming, the head of the Climate Change Convention had seemed to be offering an opening to the US.
Olive branch
It was suggested that in the next phase of action after 2012, countries might be able to pursue different routes towards a similar end.
The US mantra has been that it is committed to addressing climate change but has simply chosen a different path.
But if it was an olive branch, the US has brushed it aside.
Harlan Watson, who is leading the American delegation, told a news conference that this was not the moment for the US to reassess its policies.
Scathing judgement
He said US President George W Bush had a 10-year programme to reduce the carbon intensity of the US economy by 18% by 2012.
The government was totally committed to carrying out the programme and wanted to wait to see the results, he said.
But Mr Watson admitted that even if the US achieved its target, it would still be producing 15-16% more greenhouse gases while the rest of the industrialised world was committed to an absolute reduction.
He was scathing about the way the rest of the world was approaching climate change, arguing that the Kyoto agreement was a political document and not based on sound science.
Mr Watson said the protocol was more about being seen to agree than about actual action.
He challenged any of the Kyoto parties to match the US in the practical steps it was undertaking.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/4077073.stm
-
fucking disgusting the richest country in the world can't join up to something to make a better world, which the rest of the industrialised world has signed up too even russia
-
I realize that most liberals strongly support the Kyoto treaty but often they seem not to look past the fact that it's a pro-environment international agreement. Thats all. Good policy decisions, environmental or not, need to be based on a detailed estimation of the effects; not simply warm feelings about the intended goal. It's not uncommon for economic and societal regulation to have paradoxical effects and actually encourage the opposite of their intended consequence and I know that Kyoto is one of those cases.
In particular, the danger with Kyoto is that it places legal caps on emissions from developed countries while enforcing no such requirements on third world countries. There are non-binding targets, but come on now... FEW Third world countries are going to sacrifice economic development for a non-binding CO2 emissions target. I can't really say I blame em. If I was living in poor squalid conditions I wouldn't be happy with my government sacrificing my chance to earn a better wage because the industrialized countries dumped too much CO2 into the air when they were trying to modernize.
The economic consequences seem fairly obvious to the educated. A plant built in a first world country, party to the Kyoto treaty, is likely to require a more expensive emission control system or the purchase of emissions credits in addition to the already high price of labor. Therefore Kyoto is likely to simply encourage the building of CO2 emitting plants in third world countries on whom the treaty is not binding. Even if some provision of the treaty or national law prevents the company in question from building such a plant themselves it will only be a short time before investors in China/India or elsewhere realize they can produce products much cheaper and construct a factory to supply them.
Now if the effect of the treaty was simply to move jobs and plants overseas I wouldn't have a problem with it. I think the idea that Americans should keep jobs rather than giving them to poor third world nations is fucking selfish. The claptrap that these jobs (who the people in the third world seem to overwhelmingly prefer to their former employment), are somehow actually bad for the residents of the third world is just a flimsy cover story so liberals don't feel squeamish about supporting organized labor. Sure there are cases where companies have moved in and abused the local population, However, it is damn insulting to suggest that the citizens of a democracy like India are not perfectly capable of deciding if a corporate factory or plant is to their national detriment or benefit.
Loss of jobs, though probably the main concern of the Bush administration, is not the real danger. More disturbing is the prospect that by further encouraging factory relocation to the 3rd world we actually increase CO2 emissions. Already most first world countries have some emission control requirements but by increasing the cost of emissions significantly we will push many plants and operations over the line where relocation guarantees a significant increase in profit. However, once in a third world country they will have even less incentive to curtail CO2 emissions thus potentially increasing global CO2 production.
This is much more of an issue for the United States, because of it's more liquid markets and production, than it is for Europe. Also Europe may already be affected by this problem by factories moving the the United States. So while European nations signing the Kyoto treaty may result in a reduction of CO2 emissions it is quite possible that the long term effect of a US signature would be to *ncrease emissions by encouraging factories to locate in areas with little to no controls.
Maybe I'm misunderstanding some important part of the treaty. I doubt it though.
Sure there are some serious practical issues. For instance what sort of auditing method can you use to insure greenhouse emissions are reported accurately, especially when the exporting country has an incentive to hide emissions. Also, how do you divide emissions between various products produced at the same factory some of which may be sold domestically others sent to a first world nation.
Do some research. I'd be willing to bet you both haven't even read the Kyoto Treaty
-
your looking at it from a very one sided point of view. the idea is to cut emmission whcih won't necessarily mean factories will move elsewhere, but to add in the cost of the damage to the enviroment into the price which the consumer pays where market forces have failed to do this. its also to encourage developing nations to do more, we'd be hyporcrits if we asking them to cut emissions but not doing anything ourselves, plus its the developed nations who produce by far the most emmissions so we should really be working on reducing the problems not brushing them aside like the worlds worst poluter does. if america can't afford to cut emmissions then their markets are failing and should have governemnt subsidies to encourage them too or they should leave that industry its as simple as that.
-
Canada signed up, yet the US has been reducing gasses better.
http://cnews.canoe.ca/CNEWS/Canada/2004/09/07/619442-cp.html
-
^Thanks for the link. There must be a hidden agenda, though... even though we're cutting gasses better than Canada, we're probably shipping them all north and blaming it on yall. THAT FUCKING GEORGE BUSH!!!!
-
"When President George W. Bush pulled out of the Kyoto process he said signing the protocol could harm the U.S. economy, and Watson said that argument has been even more persuasive since."
Bush is concerned with proposals that may hurt the American Economy?
-
of course.. america is driven by money, its a capitalist country.. if america could make the money back (and then some) by selling "yay we signed kyoto" stickers to everyone then they would sign.
i actually agree more with the US view now than i thought i would.. just like how the "political correctness" of the 90s is starting to turn on itself.. e.g. the repeal of gay marriage rights etc..
the same thing is already happening over here with things like call centres.. they're being pushed out of the country.. its a running joke that if you call your bank you end up talking to an indian guy who is pretending to be called "steven" to sound more friendly to you.. while people who used to work in call centres are jobless.. and those that do are pushed hard to meet targets..
-
"When President George W. Bush pulled out of the Kyoto process he said signing the protocol could harm the U.S. economy, and Watson said that argument has been even more persuasive since."
Bush is concerned with proposals that may hurt the American Economy?
You get thoroughly schooled, and the only thing you can do is come back on the economy?! I thought this topic was about the Kyoto Treaty?!
Get the fuck outta here.
-
your looking at it from a very one sided point of view. the idea is to cut emmission whcih won't necessarily mean factories will move elsewhere, but to add in the cost of the damage to the enviroment into the price which the consumer pays where market forces have failed to do this. its also to encourage developing nations to do more, we'd be hyporcrits if we asking them to cut emissions but not doing anything ourselves, plus its the developed nations who produce by far the most emmissions so we should really be working on reducing the problems not brushing them aside like the worlds worst poluter does. if america can't afford to cut emmissions then their markets are failing and should have governemnt subsidies to encourage them too or they should leave that industry its as simple as that.
Show me some hard numbers that show the Kyoto treaty will do anything significant, other than redistribute wealth around the world and then we'll talk.
You have a hard enough time understanding the English language. How do you expect to understand international treaties and their nuances?
-
The US has some of the highest levels of CO2 output as well as other toxins than any other nation in the world...
Saying that signing an agreement to limit output pollution and have corporations be enviornmentally concious in conjunction w/ seaking a profit is acinine... I'll touch more on this tomorrow before I have to cut out from work...
greedy selfish cold-hearted PIGs are against the Kyoto, plain and simple (leave all the rightwing, big business rhetoric at home, which is all that's been posted)
-
It amazes me that you think we(the U.S.) would. The Kyoto treaty brings nothing but bad things to America. If it were to be legally binding on every country in the world, and not just the ones with an arbitrarily high level of development at the time the treaty was developed, then come back to us. Otherwise, we prefer not to become poor by legislative fiat..
-
"When President George W. Bush pulled out of the Kyoto process he said signing the protocol could harm the U.S. economy, and Watson said that argument has been even more persuasive since."
Bush is concerned with proposals that may hurt the American Economy?
You get thoroughly schooled, and the only thing you can do is come back on the economy?! I thought this topic was about the Kyoto Treaty?!
Get the fuck outta here.
Why are all your posts filled with so much hate and anger? I did not get "thoroughly schooled" if you read over my comments in this post, you will realize something interesting: I have no commentary on Kyoto other than my small post you cited. You can't "thoroughly school" me when I haven't even written anything. The article I posted, was fairly balanced, and pointed out how both sides feel.
-
Why are all your posts filled with so much hate and anger? I did not get "thoroughly schooled" if you read over my comments in this post, you will realize something interesting: I have no commentary on Kyoto other than my small post you cited. You can't "thoroughly school" me when I haven't even written anything. The article I posted, was fairly balanced, and pointed out how both sides feel.
My posts are filled with hate and anger because I hate morons. It pains me to see people that are so fucking stupid, continue to try and justify the utterly ignorant things they say.
Back to the Kyoto Treaty. It's trash. I'm glad the President of the United States isn't gonna sign it.
-
You wanted a response:
I realize that most liberals strongly support the Kyoto treaty but often they seem not to look past the fact that it's pro-environment international agreement. Thats all. Good policy decisions, environmental or not, need to be based on a detailed estimation of the effects; not simply warm feelings about the intended goal. It's not uncommon for economic and societal regulation to have paradoxical effects and actually encourage the opposite of their intended consequence and I know that Kyoto is one of those cases.
No I think the majority of the world signed the Kyoto treaty realizing that it is pro-environment. Supporters of the Kyoto Protocol are concerned with global warming. You are applying stardard conservative thinking, which I tend to agree with, across the board when you say "its not uncommon for regulations to have paradoxical effects." I dislike regulations, but in some cases they are necessary. When individual self-interests will not lead to the optimal solution for all parties, regulation becomes necessary.
In particular, the danger with Kyoto is that it places legal caps on emissions from developed countries while enforcing no such requirements on third world countries. There are non-binding targets, but come on now... FEW Third world countries are going to sacrifice economic development for a non-binding CO2 emissions target. I can't really say I blame em. If I was living in poor squalid conditions I wouldn't be happy with my government sacrificing my chance to earn a better wage because the industrialized countries dumped too much CO2 into the air when they were trying to modernize.
John Kerry argued that we need to hold foreign countries to the same standards we hold ourselves to environmentally so that we can level the playing field. I actually disagree with this because currently, 3rd world countries do relatively little to hurt the economy in comparison to large industrialized nations like the U.S. Additionally, 3rd world populations naturally behave in ways that are less environmentally damaging than western countries behave. In the U.S. we buy, buy, buy, buy, and then throw away. This wasted use of energy and resources has a massive impact on our environment. In comparison, I have friends from both nigeria and italy, who are relentless in their desire to waste as little as possible. The average american buys something like 10-15 shirts per year, the average african buys 1 maybe. My nigerian friends eat every part of the animal when they cook, the heart, lungs, liver, and even the cow's tail. In the west, we typically eat only the best parts, and the rest gets thrown away during the production process. I hold westerns to higher standards, because consumerism is the single biggest threat to the environment and become 3rd World countries are relatively minor offenders.
The economic consequences seem fairly obvious to the educated. A plant built in a first world country, party to the Kyoto treaty, is likely to require a more expensive emission control system or the purchase of emissions credits in addition to the already high price of labor. Therefore Kyoto is likely to simply encourage the building of CO2 emitting plants in third world countries on whom the treaty is not binding. Even if some provision of the treaty or national law prevents the company in question from building such a plant themselves it will only be a short time before investors in China/India or elsewhere realize they can produce products much cheaper and construct a factory to supply them.
The goal of Kyoto is to reduce CO2 emissions by decreasing activities that create CO2 emissions. The objectives of Kyoto would not be achieved through the implementation of emission control systems, but rather through investment in sustainable sources of energy. Whenever we use energy there are environmental consquences, especially with the use of coal for energy. Investment in sustainable energy represent one time costs that will eventually offer competitive advantages to U.S. businesses. By developing renewable energies, like solar, wind, biomass, and so on we reduce the cost of energy usage, and also reduce costs for American manufacturers. Most of the burden here is placed on the energy industry and the U.S. government who would have had to fund the development of sustainable energies. In some ways we already do this. In NY businesses can recieve state grants for implementing solar systems. We also recieve state money for upgrading our lighting systems and for other projects that reduce energy usage. Many of the programs required to make Kyoto sucessful would simply be extensions of similiar state funded programs. These programs actually make manufacturers more efficient by helping them reduce their energy costs. Anyways, the point is, that Kyoto would not push jobs overseas to less environmentally friendly countries. In fact, improving the energy efficiency of the American economy would make us more competitive by lowering costs for american businesses in the long run.
-
You wanted a response:
I was hoping I wouldn't have to deal with more of your long winded, poorly written dribble.
No I think the majority of the world signed the Kyoto treaty realizing that it is pro-environment. Supporters of the Kyoto Protocol are concerned with global warming. You are applying stardard conservative thinking, which I tend to agree with, across the board when you say "its not uncommon for regulations to have paradoxical effects." I dislike regulations, but in some cases they are necessary. When individual self-interests will not lead to the optimal solution for all parties, regulation becomes necessary.
What you don't understand about Kyoto, is that most politicians who have signed on to Kyoto have done so for short term political gain. It makes everyone feel good that something is being done, while they don't actually have to do anything painful. If people are actually forced to curtail their lifestyle in 2012 in order to comply with the protocol, then you will see countries dropping out of it. I guarantee that. After all, there are no penalties for dropping out. If you had to choose between spending billions of dollars to reduce C02 production, or buy CO2 credits from Russia for billions of dollars, or drop out and keep your money, which one would you choose? What you fail to see about Kyoto is the simple fact that 3rd world countries aren't held to the same standards as major polluters like the United States. What do you really think would happen if the United States signed on to this?
1.) Companies keep polluting factories in the United States, pay heavy penalties, loose revenue, and curtail operations or
2.) Move factories to 3rd world countries with no regulation from Kyoto, and pollute as much or more than currently?
If you pick option 1, you're wrong.
The only way that Kyoto will be complied with is if technology improves (e.g. more fuel efficient vehicles and energy production) to the point where painful choices are not required. That improvement will happen regardless of Kyoto.
John Kerry argued that we need to hold foreign countries to the same standards we hold ourselves to environmentally so that we can level the playing field. I actually disagree with this because currently, 3rd world countries do relatively little to hurt the economy in comparison to large industrialized nations like the U.S. Additionally, 3rd world populations naturally behave in ways that are less environmentally damaging than western countries behave. In the U.S. we buy, buy, buy, buy, and then throw away. This wasted use of energy and resources has a massive impact on our environment. In comparison, I have friends from both nigeria and italy, who are relentless in their desire to waste as little as possible. The average american buys something like 10-15 shirts per year, the average african buys 1 maybe. My nigerian friends eat every part of the animal when they cook, the heart, lungs, liver, and even the cow's tail. In the west, we typically eat only the best parts, and the rest gets thrown away during the production process. I hold westerns to higher standards, because consumerism is the single biggest threat to the environment and become 3rd World countries are relatively minor offenders.
Good job using an argument from John Kerry. His environmental policy was just as misguided as your understanding of Kyoto. You claim that 3rd world countries do little to hurt the environment. Fine. Go back and read my first post more carefully. I presented clearly what would happen if America signed onto Kyoto. Your "argument" regarding the actions of 3rd world citizens has little to do with polluting companies that would move to their lands if America signed onto Kyoto.
The goal of Kyoto is to reduce CO2 emissions by decreasing activities that create CO2 emissions. The objectives of Kyoto would not be achieved through the implementation of emission control systems, but rather through investment in sustainable sources of energy. Whenever we use energy there are environmental consquences, especially with the use of coal for energy. Investment in sustainable energy represent one time costs that will eventually offer competitive advantages to U.S. businesses. By developing renewable energies, like solar, wind, biomass, and so on we reduce the cost of energy usage, and also reduce costs for American manufacturers. Most of the burden here is placed on the energy industry and the U.S. government who would have had to fund the development of sustainable energies. In some ways we already do this. In NY businesses can recieve state grants for implementing solar systems. We also recieve state money for upgrading our lighting systems and for other projects that reduce energy usage. Many of the programs required to make Kyoto sucessful would simply be extensions of similiar state funded programs. These programs actually make manufacturers more efficient by helping them reduce their energy costs. Anyways, the point is, that Kyoto would not push jobs overseas to less environmentally friendly countries. In fact, improving the energy efficiency of the American economy would make us more competitive by lowering costs for american businesses in the long run.
Like I said before, these things will happen if we sign on to kyoto or not. it really doesn't matter.
-
Call me crazy, but does anybody else find it extremely ironic that groups of people who really hate Bush, chastise him about the United states losing manufacturing and blue collar jobs - and in fact whole companies - overseas, and that the the same groups, chastise Bush for not signing onto Kyoto, when those two positions in this context are essentially diametrically opposed?
We're not signing onto Kyoto because it exempts nations termed as "developing". Nations like China. That doesn't exactly level the playing field when we're losing manufacturing jobs to places like China. Further, the EPA, and the whole of the US government, is committed to the principles of Kyoto, but we will not ratify such an unbalanced agreement.
This isn't a bid to line pockets of corporate officers. This doesn't mean Republicans hate clean air and throw caution about potential global warming concerns to the wind. This means the United states is trying to stay competitive in a global economy, where we're losing jobs where someone who got paid US$22/hour for turning a bolt on an assembly line for 17 years is losing his job to someone who gets paid US$22/month to do the same job. This is a hope to at least keep some of these jobs during a long period of economic transition.
Note to the Kyoto activists: you can't have your cake and eat it, too. Either we lose jobs AND companies to places like China, or we sign on to Kyoto. Yes, there's a lot of nuance, but I'm afraid that it's that simple.
-
I don't complain about U.S. losing manufacturing jobs. I really don't care. I'm pro-free trade for the most part, but I can accept that some amount of protectionism is necessary. I've criticized Bush occasionally for job losses, because his economic policies exacerbated the problems.
And despite my posts... I'm impartial to the Kyoto protocol. I believe more should be done to protect the environment than is currently being done. Whether change comes through international treaties, or government funding of research I don't care. But the truth is Bush did very little during his first term to help the environment, besides lift regulations, and it doesn't seem as if he will do more this time
See now there is a difference between having an opinion that is correct, and supporting your opinion with correct logic. I'll give you the possibilty that Kyoto is flawed and unnecessary, but your logic did little to prove that was so. Your whole post was centered on the fact we will force organizations to implement "emission control systems" what these systems do no one knows, but they cost money, and everyone will need to have them in Engelworld. Because "emission control systems" cost money, and do nothing, manufacturers will all move overseas and continue to pollute.
Now in the real world, if we want to reduce CO2 emissions, we implement programs that help reduce energy usage. We develop solar, and wind power systems. We upgrade our lighting systems. We retrofit buildings to make them more energy efficient. We replace outdated HVAC systems, and inefficient motors. None of these things will scare away manufacturers and send them to Africa. Instead they will make America a more attractive place to do business than it currently is.
Now you say these things will happen irregardless of Kyoto and at the same time you say John Kerry's environmental policy was misguided. Kerry's environmental policy was simply to finance the creation of new technology and extend state programs like NYSERDA to the federal level. Maybe that is misguided, but I would have looked forward to better energy systems, and more incentives to reduce energy usage. And while it is true that we will continue to advance, the question is at what pace? Is advancement enough? As long as something new happens in the next decade, we made advancements? I think we need to advance faster because there are economic benefits for doing so. You see in business you want to put your money where it actually gets a return. Now, Iraq which costs 200 billion gets... zero return. While energy efficiency provides a return by decreasing costs. It certainly makes more sense, than John McCain's recent desire to regulate Major League Baseball. Another idea that costs money, and returns nothing.
-
Call me crazy, but does anybody else find it extremely ironic that groups of people who really hate Bush, chastise him about the United states losing manufacturing and blue collar jobs - and in fact whole companies - overseas, and that the the same groups, chastise Bush for not signing onto Kyoto, when those two positions in this context are essentially diametrically opposed?
We're not signing onto Kyoto because it exempts nations termed as "developing". Nations like China. That doesn't exactly level the playing field when we're losing manufacturing jobs to places like China. Further, the EPA, and the whole of the US government, is committed to the principles of Kyoto, but we will not ratify such an unbalanced agreement.
This isn't a bid to line pockets of corporate officers. This doesn't mean Republicans hate clean air and throw caution about potential global warming concerns to the wind. This means the United states is trying to stay competitive in a global economy, where we're losing jobs where someone who got paid US$22/hour for turning a bolt on an assembly line for 17 years is losing his job to someone who gets paid US$22/month to do the same job. This is a hope to at least keep some of these jobs during a long period of economic transition.
Note to the Kyoto activists: you can't have your cake and eat it, too. Either we lose jobs AND companies to places like China, or we sign on to Kyoto. Yes, there's a lot of nuance, but I'm afraid that it's that simple.
what does america know about a level playing field your when you use alot protectionism which can be very damageing world industry and can lead to trade wars (like it has in the past) with tarrifs going up everytwhere and your not exactly a poor country. its important we care about the enviroment, you have what 3 % of the worlds population but produce 25% of the worlds pollution and your worried about develeoping nations polluting? gimme a break, they've got fuck all you can afford to tighten your belts.
-
But the truth is Bush did very little during his first term to help the environment, besides lift regulations, and it doesn't seem as if he will do more this time
Bullshit
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A55409-2004Nov16.html
This is largely driven by the US and it includes India and China. It'll have the same greenhouse effect as removing 7% of US fleet of cars from the road and it costs next to nothing.
Just because Bush doesn't sign up to a program with name recognition, doesn't mean the US government isn't doing anything. It's funny to me that you really don't know
See now there is a difference between having an opinion that is correct, and supporting your opinion with correct logic. I'll give you the possibilty that Kyoto is flawed and unnecessary, but your logic did little to prove that was so. Your whole post was centered on the fact we will force organizations to implement "emission control systems" what these systems do no one knows, but they cost money, and everyone will need to have them in Engelworld. Because "emission control systems" cost money, and do nothing, manufacturers will all move overseas and continue to pollute.
Now in the real world, if we want to reduce CO2 emissions, we implement programs that help reduce energy usage. We develop solar, and wind power systems. We upgrade our lighting systems. We retrofit buildings to make them more energy efficient. We replace outdated HVAC systems, and inefficient motors. None of these things will scare away manufacturers and send them to Africa. Instead they will make America a more attractive place to do business than it currently is.
You can go on and on about lowering emmissions, making buildings more energy efficent, and replacing outdated HVAC systems all you want. It still doesn't change the fact that the Kyoto Treaty is trash. Did you know that In the case of Russia, for example, they can actually raise their current levels of emission since they had more emeissions in 1990? They can do this not because they have developed clean fuel, or learned to reduce consumption, but because their economy completely imploded. So basically, Europe won't change much, nor will Russia, but the rest of Europe will end up paying Russia money.
Also, most of the meat of this deal are based on carbdon ton credits. If the UK can't make their target they can "buy" a carbon ton of rainforest (defined as the amount of trees it would take to scrub 1 carbon ton from the air) and keep them from being destroyted to "even out" the carbon levels. Costa Rica is "selling" their national parks (which were not going to be cut down anyways) for this purpose.
This treaty is functionaly a joke if you are concerned about lowering greenhouse emissions.
Regarding your claim that lowering emiisions would make "America a more attractive place to do business than it currently is."
LOL!!!!
Are you fucking kidding me? I knew you were simple, but this just takes the cake.
Here's a short version for you: Kyoto would have required the US to cut its carbon-dioxide emissions by 30-40% over the next 10 years. Cutting CO2 emissions = cutting back on the use of carbon-based fuels like oil, gas, and coal. Those fuels produce over 2/3 of the energy used in the United States. Witness the downturn that the economy took just over the last few months as oil got a bit more expensive and energy production dropped. Now picture another 30-40% drop on top of that. Do you see begin to see how making "America a more attractive place to do business than it currently is." sounds so fucking stupid?
Now you say these things will happen irregardless of Kyoto and at the same time you say John Kerry's environmental policy was misguided. Kerry's environmental policy was simply to finance the creation of new technology and extend state programs like NYSERDA to the federal level. Maybe that is misguided, but I would have looked forward to better energy systems, and more incentives to reduce energy usage. And while it is true that we will continue to advance, the question is at what pace? Is advancement enough? As long as something new happens in the next decade, we made advancements? I think we need to advance faster because there are economic benefits for doing so. You see in business you want to put your money where it actually gets a return. Now, Iraq which costs 200 billion gets... zero return. While energy efficiency provides a return by decreasing costs. It certainly makes more sense, than John McCain's recent desire to regulate Major League Baseball. Another idea that costs money, and returns nothing.
LOL!
Now you're on John McCain's nuts? And what's with the Iraq comments? Once again, I thouht were were talking about the Kyoto Treaty. Here's some background for you: The groundwork for the treaty was laid in 1995, and continued through 1997. In 1998, despite significant misgivings about the treaty by the (then) Clinton administration, the administration presented the treaty to the U.S. Senate for ratification. It was rejected by the Senate on a vote of 98-0.
Hate Bush all you want--believe all the wacko conspiracy theories you like. But the U.S. rejected Kyoto while he was governor of Texas.
Once again: Show me some hard numbers that show the Kyoto treaty will do anything significant, other than redistribute wealth around the world and then we'll talk.
-
what does america know about a level playing field your when you use alot protectionism which can be very damageing world industry and can lead to trade wars (like it has in the past) with tarrifs going up everytwhere and your not exactly a poor country. its important we care about the enviroment, you have what 3 % of the worlds population but produce 25% of the worlds pollution and your worried about develeoping nations polluting? gimme a break, they've got fuck all you can afford to tighten your belts.
You can't even type a proper sentence and you expect The United States to follow your directions and Tighten it's belts?
LOL
-
ppl who pick at other peoples grammer on an informal message board are one of the following:
1) an annoying twat
2) too stupid to understand the subject
3) or just plain ingnorant and unwilling to accept the truth
next time come back with a constructive argument on the subject
-
ppl who pick at other peoples grammer on an informal message board are one of the following:
1) an annoying twat
2) too stupid to understand the subject
3) or just plain ingnorant and unwilling to accept the truth
next time come back with a constructive argument on the subject
LOL!
I may be an "annoying twat" but I'm far from being "too stupid to understand the subject" and "just plain ingnorant."
How old are you BTW?
-
21 in couple of weeks, u?
-
I never ever want to hear another bad word about the United States educational system ever again.
-
you see the thing is when i come here i write very quickly and don't often read over what i'm about to post, cos i don't really care to be honest. The reason being is that its not like i'm doing something for work, or putting something into my dissertation which i'm currently working on for degree, this is a hiphop message board which people can interact with each other in an informal manner and who cares if they miss a word out or something as long as you can understand what their trying to say it ok. which i'm sure as you've had such a good education in the united states of america you are pefectly able to do.
-
It's...
Just...
So...
Easy...
-
i like to use my time more wisely lets just leave it at that because i'm not going to make an effort just to please you, so can we stick to the topics and actually talk constructivly from now on please.
-
1. I stated that Bush did very little to help the environment during his first term. You responded "bullshit" and posted an article dated Nov. 17th. What does a recent bill have to do with the past? I understand it is still Bush's first term, but I was reflecting on the past.
2. I never argued for or against the Kyoto Protocol. I argued against your position, which was essentially "Kyoto is trash because emission control systems cost money." This position was clearly wrong. Kyoto would have forced the U.S. to aggressively reduce its energy usage. This has very little to do with emission control systems.
3. I stated that reducing energy usage would make America a more attractive place to do business. I don't see why this is difficult to understand but it is true. Here is an example from my company: we spend about 500k annually on utility bills. NYSERDA offers grant money that subsidized the implementation of energy efficient lighting systems, HVAC systems, motors, windows, etc. We are retrofitting one of our plants this year with new lighting, and we will save 20k per year because of it. When you use less energy you pay less, and also as the demand for energy drops, the cost of energy drops. How do you interpret this as a financial hardship for U.S. businesses?
Also, NY subsidizes the creation of solar electric systems... currently the payback on solar systems with government subsidizes is around 10 years, but still once you get past the ten year mark, your making pure profit. Things like this make American Businesses more competitive. More simply, if you reduce costs, you become more competitive. Energy efficiency reduces costs.
To be in compliance with the Kyoto accords, the U.S. would have to reduce emissions by becoming more energy efficient and by switching to clean energy solutions. This would be done by financing research that develop more cost effective means of reducing energy consumption. For example, if solar panels could be manufactured more effectively they could be sold for less, and the payback would be quicker.
The bottom line is energy-efficiency is good for the American economy, and the reduction in emissions would be achieved primarily through reductions in energy usage and a shift to clean energy.
Your mentioned that the economy took a down turn because the price of oil rose and then stated that Kyoto would cause the price of oil and energy to rise even further. This is simply absurd. The things i've talked about would reduce demand for oil reducing the price, and reducing costs for american manufacturers.
4. The only burdern for Kyoto would be on the Energy Industry who would see demand for energy decrease, and the U.S. government who would be required to do more to finance R & D and also finance subsidizes for corporations that want to become energy efficient.
5. The system of credits was devised to encourage countries to reduce emissions, and to reward countries who arent. For example, if the U.S. reduced emissions beyond the required point, it could sell credits to those who didn't reach their target. The credit system is how Kyoto is regulated. If you miss your target you are punished financially, if you exceed your target you are rewarded financially. This pushes countries to meet or exceed their targets. Sure if you are stupid, you can miss your target and continually pay for your poor performance, but the credit system encourages all countries to meet their targets by establishing an incentive for doing so.
-
just makes me hate on bush and the u.s govt. 100X more... i want bush to die.
-
this is the answer for the world... presented to dubcc.
http://www.dubcnn.com/connect/index.php?topic=62895.0